A KEY HOUSE LAWMAKER said he plans to file legislation shortly that would require Massachusetts gun owners to obtain liability insurance and store any large capacity rifles at licensed gun clubs instead of at their homes.

Liability insurance is an economic barrier to entry. Poor people can’t afford it. It diminshes their rights visibly. Also, rights do not require purchase of a product, no matter what SCOTUS says about how you have to pay fines if you commit the crime of living under Obamacare.

Storing rifles at “licensed gun clubs” just puts them in the same place, out of the hands of the owners. Bearing arms does not mean leaving your arms 20 miles away in a club safe you have no access to. It’s a tool to enable confiscation at a later date.

Rep. David Linsky, who called a meeting on gun control last week at the State House that attracted nearly half the members of the Legislature, said his bill would also require gun license applicants to allow access to their mental health records so local police chiefs can determine their fitness to carry a weapon.

License applicants – that means you’re asking the government permission to exercise a right. You don’t need permission to exercise rights. Permits mean you’re begging to be allowed to do something, and your master is granting your miserable plea.

Giving local police chiefs discretion is how racist southern sheriffs denied black people the right to bear arms. “You don’ need no gun, boy.”

For those who don’t remember, Bull Connor was a Democrat sheriff, famous for oppressing black people. Just like Democrats are famous for their racist gun control.

The bill, according to Linsky, would also give more discretion to police chiefs to reject license applicants and raise the existing 6.25 percent sales tax on firearms and ammunition, with the additional revenue going into a trust fund to pay for mental health and victim services. The Natick Democrat declined to say how big of an increase in the sales tax he will seek.

Allows racist police to discriminate with the support of the law.

Raising the sales tax to an unknown number is all a barrier to entry. It harms the poor who can’t pay the taxes and leaves them depenedent on the racist police.

Paying for “mental health and victim services” is a way for the politician to sell himself as doing a good thing. He can stand next to people who are victims because they were disarmed and say how much he feels for them – when he is the cause of their victimhood.

Existing Massachusetts gun laws are already regarded as some of the toughest in the nation, but Linsky, echoing concerns raised by House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray, said the state’s laws need to be improved.

Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws on law-abiding citizens. Criminals do not care. Laws on the law-abiding will be made worse. Laws on the criminal are just as meaningless as they were before.

Paddy “The Red Lyon” O’Reilly the Boston mob enforcer is not going to go register his gun and leave it at a shooting club. Willie Williams, who happens to be black walking through the wrong white neighborhood, is going to be disarmed when skinheads beat him senseless.

“There are lots of loopholes that need to be filled,” Linsky said.

“There are still chances that citizens can exercise their rights. We must destroy them,” Linsky thought.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, described some of the concepts in Linsky’s bill as “kind of interesting,” but questioned the premise underlying the debate. He said there were 1.5 million licensed gun owners in Massachusetts in 1998, the last time lawmakers passed weapons legislation. Now, he says, there are fewer than 300,000 licensed gun owners. But Wallace says gun violence has increased, not abated.

“So what’s the end game? Are you trying to reduce crime or just trying to get rid of gun ownership?” he asked. “They have to start focusing on the bad guys,” he said, urging lawmakers to develop a list of people who should not be allowed to obtain gun permits or buy weapons.

They are trying to destroy all legal gun ownership.

Even “laws that focus on the bad guys” turn into “make citizens into bad guys”. There are already lists of people who can’t legally own guns. They’re called criminals. Making a list of them is meaningless. They don’t care. And madmen cannot be stopped because no one addresses actual mental health problems – otherwise the political enemy would be the ACLU that did away with commitment laws, not the NRA. This is about destroying gun ownership, not dealing with madmen, or with criminals.

Some of the provisions in Linsky’s bill, including the liability insurance requirement and a higher sales tax, would make owning a gun more expensive. Others could make it more difficult to obtain a license.

Barrier to entry, barrier to entry, barrier to entry. Diminishes gun culture through regulation by making it more expensive and more difficult. Financial and social disincentives to exercising the right means fewer people will. It’s coercion.

The mental health provision is patterned after laws in Hawaii that require gun license applicants to disclose any mental health issues and sign a release allowing officials access to their medical records.

It would be nice if this were supposed to be a plan to stop violence and madmen, but it’s not. If madman is on the loose, he should be institutionalized. This is a way to begin to deny vets with minor PTSD, people who’ve been treated for normal mental issues like depression or anxiety, and deny them their rights. It also lends to fewer people trusting mental health professionals when they know that their rights will be stripped. The leftist caricature of the paranoid loner is less inclined to ask for help if he knows that as soon as he does, people will really be out to get him and deny him his rights. Since people really are out to get him, his paranoia becomes justified – so any help he would like and would benefit from he’ll stay away from.

Wallace said Linsky’s gun storage provision would probably be the first of its kind in the nation. It would require the owners of large capacity firearms, those capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (or five rounds for shotguns), to store the weapons at a licensed gun club instead of at home.

Definitions of bear: a: to move while holding up and supporting (something) b: to be equipped or furnished with (something).

Not a definition of bear: to store far away from possession in a location that’s inaccessible without permission of government and a private government licensed entity.

It’s a precursor to confiscation. Next time, they just walk to the club and take them all. There is no resistance, there are no tools for resistance.

It’s all an engineered strategy to destroy the natural right of defense respected by the Second Amendment.